Do you agree with the UKs vaccination approach?

[LoveHeartHug]

The vaccine trials were trialed on a 2 injections spaced apart over a few weeks. Itt's common for some side effects to occur from some doses of the vaccine especially after second dose of vaccine.

My worry is if someone contracts the virus after receiving one dose of the vaccine and what would happen. If a serious illness occurs.

I was also watching TV earlier in the week and someone on a show was saying the UK is at 24% vaccinated. I felt watching it that it wasn't true. There's 24% partially vaccinated.

@Iremembertheelderlykoreanlady

So we wouldnt now be down to to people more likely to catch and spread and therefore die the younger have more life lost, have young kids. Many of these shielded are expected to still send kids to school and once out of lockdown would be probably back at schools/offices etc.

I've read this 3 times and still don't understand?

I think they're saying that, if we had given the elderly 2 jabs with a 3 week jab, we wouldn't have yet got to young clinically extremely vulnerable people having any jabs at all. The way it is, these extremely vulnerable people have at least got one jab. This is good because these people may be expected to go to work and send kids to schools, unlike the elderly.

I do think it makes sense to have a high proportion of people with 85% immunity, rather than a smaller proportion of people with 90%

More like an educated guess, taking into account what we know about vaccines generally. So some luck involved, yes but not a completely wild random guess

Yes of course. They/we were still lucky :)

It is the right thing to do

@Zogstart

100% agree with the decision. Some people talk about it as if the government just made a stab in the dark with it. I’m sure they listened to the scientists who know about other vaccines and how long immunity lasts, had access to trial data and just generally years and years of expertise on the subjects. So yes it was a guess but a very very educated one.

Absolutely this. It was a decision informed by what we know about boosting other vaccines. And it was the right way to go.

Yes

I don't feel a need to have a an opinion about the spacing. it seems to be working out ok is the strongest I'll venture.

I totally agree with the approach of a bigger gap between jabs to give more of the population a decent level of protection faster. From a public health perspective I don't think you could really argue for giving fewer people both jabs.

There are always going to be quibbles with the priority groupings but I have no views on how they might be tweaked. I don't think they're fundamentally flawed.

@Thimbleberries

I would raelly like to know what evidence they are collecting at the moment regarding Pfizer antibodies and the three week vs 12 week schedule. I can't believe that they would just say, 'oh let's wait and see what the rates are like after 12 weeks and then we'll know' - they must surely be testing UK people after 3, 4, 6, 8 etc weeks to see what happens to antibody rates, and who gets the disease when (if any) after the first shot. Surely. And yet I've not heard of anyone in the UK on a trial for this, as Pfizer didn't do their initial trial here. Does anyone know if and where this sort of study is being done?

The Israel and other data is fine but they didn't really test in the weeks beyond 3 weeks as they gave the second shots then as per the recommendations. I don't think there is anywhere else a study could have been done but in the UK

I'm booked for Pfizer next Friday and would have been more than happy to volunteer for continued antibody testing or whatever, but no-where to sign up!

I am on a trial for this. You can sign up here

It's the Virus Watch study run by UCL whcih I first signed up for early last year.. I am to have antibody tests every month from April to August which detect and differentiate between antibodies from virus and from vaccine.

I am CEV and have not had covid. I volunteered for everything last year and have mostly just done questionnaires so it's nice to do something more concrete.

To all those worried about the gap between doses, it's quite common to have booster doss of vaccines. Think about the MMR. One dose as a baby and the second dose at 5/6 years.

Oh thanks Juo, I will sign up for that! I hadn't realised it was set up to differentiate between antibodies from the infection and antibodies from the vaccine, though I knew there was a way to tell them apart. Are they blood tests that you have? Have you have the vaccine already? I'm booked to have it next week, so I'd be just the right time to sign up. Do you live near UCL or do they send tests out?

@Thimbleberries. I live in the Lincolnshire area, the tests will be postal and involve a self inflicted finger prick. I think they've just got the funding. Everyone in the household has to take part, a bit odd, but I got DH on board.
I had my vaccine three weeks ago so the timing is right, I guess they couldn't really start a study on these lines until people were vaccinated, the older cohort who got done first are perhaps less likely to go online for such things? Perhaps there is some other study of the very elderly, I don't know.
I did an antibody test last year for one of the studies I'm in (can't remember which). They give you a sort of staple gun and you have to drip blood onto a card. It's not particularly pleasant but no worse I imagine than a diabetic self test.

I would raelly like to know what evidence they are collecting at the moment regarding Pfizer antibodies and the three week vs 12 week schedule. I can't believe that they would just say, 'oh let's wait and see what the rates are like after 12 weeks and then we'll know' - they must surely be testing UK people after 3, 4, 6, 8 etc weeks to see what happens to antibody rates, and who gets the disease when (if any) after the first shot. Surely. And yet I've not heard of anyone in the UK on a trial for this, as Pfizer didn't do their initial trial here. Does anyone know if and where this sort of study is being done?

Pfizer only looked at a three week gap during their Ph III trials but Moderna (very similar vaccine) looked at different gaps and that work suggested a longer gap for the second was as good as a short gap. For the AZ vaccine the evidence suggested a longer gap was slightly better but that was based on small numbers which is why the MHRA approved it for two high doses 3 weeks apart. There's evidence for other vaccines (older vaccine against different diseases) that a longer gap works well but of course in normal times you want your population to receive a booster a quickly as possible to get the highest possible protection.

We don't have enough evidence yet to know which strategy is best, in fact if enough countries copy us we'll never have clear evidence. But the initial evidence suggests a single dose is sufficient to have an effect at a population level. So that's good.

Vaccine gaps are really common, the reason being the initial dose preps the immune system & the second dose makes that response stronger & longer lasting. And we are seeing this here. First dose gives the majority of protection, second dose is likely to boost that up higher.

MMR is given at age one & age 3
MenB is given at 8 weeks & 16 weeks
Rotavirus at 8 & 12 weeks
Tetanus is given at 8,12 & 16 weeks, then again aged 3 & finally aged 14.

We don’t consider babies unvaccinated between MMR doses do we? They just need a booster later for that longer lasting protection.

I think the govmt & scientists got this very right & in 6/12 months time, other countries will wish they hadn’t kicked up such a fuss or tried to make it political (hi EU)..

Relevant article today.

news.sky.com/story/amp/covid-19-oxford-jab-more-effective-when-doses-are-delivered-three-months-apart-study-finds-12222938

*@Carycy

I don’t understand vaccines. But I had the Pfizer vaccine ( nhs) and my worry is with the second dose be like starting again as the first doses were so far apart. Will I be fully vaccinated once I have had two doses?*

This is exactly my concern as well. It's meant to be a booster, but how do we know for sure there will be anything left to boost?

As a previous poster said, it's all very vague with no clear communication around the evidence or how they are even studying it.

They also gave a huge number of people first jabs, and then cancelled appointments initally set three weeks out to extend the time between first and second jabs. It doesn't seem right to change the timetable after you've began -- some of those people who consented to receive the first jab may well have made a different decision if they'd known they wouldn't be receiving the procedure according to manufacturer's instructions and the way it was studied in trials. Pfizer has explicitly said they do not recommend delaying the second course. Not everyone would be happy to be part of an experiment as to what happens when you extend the time between.

Oxford is different as they did extend the gap in trials with evidence that the first continues to provide protection. I think for the Oxford formula it was probably a good idea.

Trying something untested is always a gamble.

If it works well, then it's still a gamble. It was just - luckily - a successful roll of the dice.

I wouldn't gamble with British people's lives, or the future if this country. I'd play it safe and vaccinate properly.

I'd rather the most vulnerable had the most protection we could give them as soon as possible.

I wouldn't take the punt on "more people having some immunity" being better at saving lives than "the most vulnerable having as much immunity as we can give them as soon as possible".

I wouldn't take the chance that the current variants of concern could evolve into variants or recombinant viruses that can evade immunity really well.

And I definitely wouldn't start opening up while I was already doing something this risky.

Only time will tell if the UK's gamble paid off - or made things worse for the world.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/will-delaying-vaccine-doses-cause-a-coronavirus-escape-mutant--68424/amp

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/covid-vaccine-uk-new-strain-sage-b1791438.html?twitterrimpression=true

Yes. And I don’t think it was luck. I think it was data and scientific extrapolation based on what they already know.

Yes, I think it is the right approach given the urgency

@Juo

I am to have antibody tests every month from April to August which detect and differentiate between antibodies from virus and from vaccine

Thanks, very interesting.

So you can have two different type of antibodies depending on whether you've had the vaccine or the infection itself?

I value the fact that the UK government has had the guts to go a step further, gather information and think outside the box on this very pressing issue

We’re doing so much better than Europe, they have messed up there vaccine rollout
www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/19/german-politicians-counter-astrazeneca-covid-vaccine-scepticism-with-show-of-support

@Nme8961 - see my above post about vaccines & boosters.. it’s only 12 weeks, of course there’ll be something to boost! Antibodies don’t disappear in 12 weeks!

It is probably the only aspect of the response by the Government to the pandemic that I agree with. Certainly the only one we can be proud of.

I think it was worth a punt

I don’t like the 24% vaccinated type reports both from government and media

Personally id rather they got to an age say 60 and started with the 2nd doses where applicable

But impressed with the speed ....fingers crossed that it continues with the 2nd dose

Can we get some facts right:

The AZ vaccine was trialled with a 12 week spacer period. This is from their website:

Results demonstrated vaccine efficacy of 76% (CI: 59% to 86%) after a first dose, with protection maintained to the second dose. With an inter-dose interval of 12 weeks or more, vaccine efficacy increased to 82% (CI: 63%, 92%)

Reason for the difference as most now know is an error in dosing some cohorts, which actually turned out to increase efficacy.